5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Vilnius.
6.  In October 2006 the applicant was detained at the Anykščiai Police Detention Facility (hereinafter – “the Anykščiai Facility”) in cell No. 3. From 9 to 11 October he shared the cell with another person, and from 12 to 16 October he was held alone. The detention facility contained seven cells in total.
7.  The applicant complained to the administration of the Anykščiai Facility that the conditions of his detention had been appalling. In their letter of reply dated 6 November 2006, they informed the applicant that because the cell in which he had been held was situated at semi-basement level, it was technically impossible for it to have a window through which natural light could enter. They also explained that in order to install sinks and toilets in the cells, full-scale renovation would be required, but said that this was precluded owing to a lack of financial resources.
8.  The applicant then lodged a complaint, the content of which is unknown to the Court, with the Anykščiai District Prosecutor’s Office. In its reply dated 16 November 2006, the Prosecutor’s Office conceded that some of the applicant’s allegations were true: the Anykščiai Facility had indeed not met proper “norms of hygiene and functioning”. They said that the Government had been informed about the fact and that the building of a new facility was planned.
9.  The applicant lodged a further complaint with the Ombudsman, arguing that he had been held in a cell without a sink or toilet. The cell also lacked a window, so there had been no natural light or fresh air.
10.  The head of the Anykščiai Facility informed the Ombudsman that the building had been constructed in 1926 and thus it had been impossible to install toilets and sinks in the cells. He explained that detainees were taken to a communal toilet at the end of the corridor and that “each cell had a bucket for the night”. Detainees could also take drinking water to their cell.
11.  On 23 January 2007 the Ombudsman found the applicant’s complaint valid. He noted that in March 2006 health care specialists had pointed out “over and over again” (eilinį kartą) that the cells lacked sanitary units as well as natural light, although the artificial lighting met domestic legal norms. The old air vents were inadequate and the air conditioning system was ineffective. However, the facility administration was not to blame for the insufficient funding that had precluded the possibility of improving conditions in the facility.
12.  The applicant then initiated proceedings before the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage, arguing that he had been held in degrading conditions at the Anykščiai Facility. In particular, his cell had had no built-in toilet, so he had had to use a bucket. Nor did the cell have a sink, so he had suffered from a lack of drinking water. Furthermore, as a result of the inadequate lighting and the lack of fresh air, he had suffered constant headaches and his eyes had become sore. The applicant claimed 210,000 Lithuanian litai (approximately 61,000 euros) in non-pecuniary damages. He also claimed that his rights under Article 3 of the Convention had been violated.
13.  In reply to the lawsuit, the Anykščiai Facility acknowledged that the establishment did not meet the domestic legal hygiene requirements, but argued that its administration was not to blame for the lack of funding that had caused the problem and that the construction of a new remand facility was planned.
14.  On 19 October 2007 the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claims as unfounded. The court acknowledged that the conditions at the Anykščiai Facility had been unacceptable, particularly as the cells lacked sinks and toilets and inmates had to be taken to a communal toilet and had to take water to their cells. Moreover, not all cells had natural light, the air came through old vents and the air conditioning system was ineffective. Nevertheless, the court held that the facility’s administration could not be held liable for those deficiencies because the State had not allocated sufficient financial resources to improve the situation.
15.  The applicant appealed against the judgment, and on 11 July 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court granted the appeal in part, acknowledging that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had been unacceptable. The court noted that the Anykščiai Facility had not challenged the applicant’s claim that while detained, he had had to relieve himself in a bucket at night. The court considered that fact degrading. The court also found it established that the applicant had been held in a cell without a sink, and that his cell had had no natural light or adequate ventilation, which had had a negative effect on his mental health (sukėlė neigiamus išgyvenimus). On these points the court found that certain domestic regulations on hygiene standards in detention facilities - providing that cells should have natural light and that detainees should be able to use a toilet in conditions that were not degrading - had been breached. The court conceded that degrading conditions of detention could in theory amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. With regard to the applicant’s case, the court held that the conditions in which he had been held had “approached the threshold of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention”. Nevertheless, the applicant had been held for only a short time, he was 44 years of age and there was no evidence that the conditions at the detention facility had affected his [physical] health. Nor was there any indication that the detention facility administration had intended to humiliate the applicant. Certain hardships, such as a lack of privacy, were to be considered unavoidable for those who were deprived of their liberty. In the light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Supreme Administrative Court held that, in the applicant’s case, the minimum level of severity within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention had not been reached.
16.  As to the applicant’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, noting that in some cases the finding of a violation was recognised as sufficient just satisfaction. It also noted that the applicant had instituted court proceedings for damages nine months after the end of his detention in the police facility, by which time the effects of the negative experience would have diminished to a certain extent. Emphasising that in the instant case there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention, as well as the fact that the poor detention conditions were a result of limited financial resources, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected in its entirety the applicant’s claim for pecuniary compensation for the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained.
17.  When submitting their observations on the admissibility and merits, the Government provided the Court with a copy of the schedule of the Anykščiai Facility, which showed that at the relevant time the inmates were to be taken for an hour’s walk once a day.